/m/yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I think what Lupica is saying is that sportswriters' jobs will be significantly more difficult next season since each of them has put out more than a dozen stories this year on Derek Jeter that essentially wrote themselves.

I think what Lupica is saying is that sportswriters' jobs will be significantly more difficult next season since each of them has put out more than a dozen stories this year on Derek Jeter that essentially wrote themselves.

You think Lupica's job is going to be a lot harder when Jeter retires? Hell, he'll have a walk in the park compared to Repoz. With both Jeter and Bud abandoning him once the season is over, it's going to be like a stock market crash and a visit from his welfare worker all at the same time.

All I can say is that Gossage and Rose and Chass better stick around, or it's going to be crickets around here.

Truly, after Ruth, Gehrig, Combs, Hoyt, Pennock and co. are gone the glory days will be over for the Yankees.

Good grief

good griefer

[ and for a time it was as storied a five as the Knicks once had in the old days.

My God that Knicks "dynasty" lasted 4 years (1970-73) . I lived in New York for many years and I never understood this bizarre belief that the Knicks and the Jets were once proud franchises that have only recently fallen into disrepair

Duncan came along in 1997, one year after Jeter became the Yankee starter at shortstop. Only now, after all the winning he has done with the Spurs, he still is part of the Core Three in San Antonio along with Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. They just won another NBA title together a month ago, and thrilled us all the way they did. The supporting cast in San Antonio, incidentally, has been replenished without spending a fortune year after year — after year — on hired guns.

In reality, San Antonio (year after year after year) spends more money on the supporting cast than basically any other NBA team. They can do that because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili give their team a huge discount - their combined salary is $30M while they probably could get more than $60M if they wanted to maximize their salary and not their chances for additional rings. But this is somehow lost on Lupica who actually writes:

It is why the notion that Jeter got too much money in that last contract scrum he had with the Yankees a few years ago was always so chowderheaded, and short-sighted.

Comparing the 1996-2000 Yankees to the 1970-1973 Knicks, who won half as many titles? Inane. But Mike, there's another outstanding athlete in your area whose career is winding down after being key to several titles, and you've never given him the time of day. His name is Martin Brodeur.

I used to live and work in metro NYC, and the ridiculous Manhattan-centrism of the tabloids and columnists such as Lupica illustrate their ignorance. Mike, I hope your next local NBA and NHL champions come from teams outside the Garden (Nets, Isles, Devils); it'll drive you nuts (if you deign to acknowledge it), and is what you deserve.

Comparing the 1996-2000 Yankees to the 1970-1973 Knicks, who won half as many titles? Inane. But Mike, there's another outstanding athlete in your area whose career is winding down after being key to several titles, and you've never given him the time of day. His name is Martin Brodeur.

I used to live and work in metro NYC, and the ridiculous Manhattan-centrism of the tabloids and columnists such as Lupica illustrate their ignorance. Mike, I hope your next local NBA and NHL champions come from teams outside the Garden (Nets, Isles, Devils); it'll drive you nuts (if you deign to acknowledge it), and is what you deserve.

Quite true. Yet this never has applied to the Giants, who have played in the swamps of New Jersey for decades.

That's because there aren't any NFL teams in New York City, while that's not the case with the NBA and the NHL. And it's also because the Giants and Jets had the marketing sense to keep the city name. When the Nets were located somewhere out in the Long Island boonies with Dr. J, they got plenty of coverage even though the Knicks were near their peak. And when the Islanders were winning, they also got plenty of notice.

Not sure what the Devils can do about it, but the Nets seemed to finally figure it out.

In reality, San Antonio (year after year after year) spends more money on the supporting cast than basically any other NBA team. They can do that because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili give their team a huge discount - their combined salary is $30M while they probably could get more than $60M if they wanted to maximize their salary and not their chances for additional rings.

And for this they are praised. But take just a few hundred thousand less than the max salary, as Miami's stars did over the last 4 seasons, and it's the end of the world. Sure, they just wanted to win, but San Antonio's stars wanted to win more and backed that with the money.

I might assume that he came along in a different era and now just is an emperor with no clothes (*), but really the vast majority of these guys, young and old, suck, so that can't really explain it.

I just think the papers are catering to a dumb readership that needs dumb writers. The vast majority of men who follow sports are just not bright. Or if they are they haven't thought about the issues deeply enough, or have been conditioned by reading the Lupicas of the world for decades.

Ugh ain't it the truth. Atlanta sports radio teams a local authority with some random shouty carpetbagger. It blows but the local guy usually has good sources for things that don't get wide coverage so I am constantly turning it off and on while driving.

Mike was a pioneer of modern sportswriting in the 1980s. He would work hard to figure out a unique angle on a well-covered event, such as finding the family member of the pending golf or tennis champ with a tale to tell that helped you understand the champ a bit better. It sounds cliched now, but it was fresh at the time.

He's just been mailing it in for 15+ years, is all. He has made a fortune, lives with the other swells in the tony CT suburbs, and has no idea what a "real fan" thinks about anything anymore.

I agree with Howie. The Lupica working at the Daily News in the early 80s was a pretty good read. But once he made a name for himself, he went downhill much swifter and more thoroughly than most big name columnists (though it seems to be incredibly common to the species).

I agree with Howie. The Lupica working at the Daily News in the early 80s was a pretty good read.

It was before my time, but certainly plausible. But maybe that's because there was a relative lack of better options? Would you read the 80s Lupica now instead of someone like Posnanski who laps him on the track several times over?

Would you read the 80s Lupica now instead of someone like Posnanski who laps him on the track several times over?

I can't say for sure. But the path Lupica followed is one I've seen repeatedly with big-time columnists (Poz being a notable exception - I started reading him when he was back in Cincinnati opposite another guy who's followed this track, Dougherty). They work hard to reach a certain level, and the fame that comes with that goes completely to their heads* (and, quite possibly, the other opportunities, such as TV or radio, that come along with that growing fame results in them devoting less and less time to their written work) and they begin to puke out work like Lupica's been doing for two-plus decades.

* A bit too simplistic, for sure, but it just seems something tends to happen to a columnist's approach/attitude when he reaches a certain level of renown.

Some writers learn how to write well, some writers come to understand the nuances of the games they cover in ways that enhance their readers' knowledge, while other writers are simply content to learn the rules of self-promotion.

The miracle is that once in a blue moon those groups will overlap and produce a Bill James, or a good editor will come along and allow a Roger Angell enough space to reach an audience he'd never have been able to find on his own. But I wouldn't count on it being an everyday occurrence.

Comparing the 1996-2000 Yankees to the 1970-1973 Knicks, who won half as many titles?

Well, yeah ... the Knicks were eight billion times cooler than the Yankees. The Yankees have no match for Clyde or the Pearl or Bradley or Willis.(*) Nor did the Knicks bludgeon other teams with their money and their roids, nor did the Yankees play among the most aesthetically appealing basketball that has ever been played.

The odds that 90%+ of the Yankees will turn up en masse in the late 2030s for their 40th anniversary, as the '73 Knicks did last year -- or be feted so royally -- are about 100,000 to 1.

(*) And the Knicks in turn have no match for the Chad Curtises and Shane Spencers and the dumb-as-ten-boxes-of-rocks Andy Pettitte.

That's because there aren't any NFL teams in New York City, while that's not the case with the NBA and the NHL. And it's also because the Giants and Jets had the marketing sense to keep the city name. When the Nets were located somewhere out in the Long Island boonies with Dr. J, they got plenty of coverage even though the Knicks were near their peak. And when the Islanders were winning, they also got plenty of notice.

And because Manhattan cares about the Giants and can't stand the Devils and Islanders.

More like 1968/69-1973/74, really. Those Knicks teams made it to the Division/Conference Finals (the last series before the NBA Finals) all six years, made it to the Finals three times, and won twice...not too shabby, especially compared to the steaming pile o' garbage they've been for much of the 21st Century.

That's because there aren't any NFL teams in New York City, while that's not the case with the NBA and the NHL. And it's also because the Giants and Jets had the marketing sense to keep the city name. When the Nets were located somewhere out in the Long Island boonies with Dr. J, they got plenty of coverage even though the Knicks were near their peak. And when the Islanders were winning, they also got plenty of notice.

And because Manhattan cares about the Giants and can't stand the Devils and Islanders.

And what's surprising about that? How many Southside Chicago fans like the Cubs? But don't tell me that Manhattanites didn't appreciate the Doctor when he was wowing them out there in Uniondale.

--------------------------------------------------

My God that Knicks "dynasty" lasted 4 years (1970-73)

More like 1968/69-1973/74, really. Those Knicks teams made it to the Division/Conference Finals (the last series before the NBA Finals) all six years, made it to the Finals three times, and won twice...not too shabby, especially compared to the steaming pile o' garbage they've been for much of the 21st Century.

They were also up against the last of the Russell Celtics team, the Jabbar/Robertson Bucks, the Cowens/Havlicek/White Celtics powerhouse, a very good series of Bullets teams, and some Left Coast team that won 33 games in a row at one point. Given that level of competition, I'd say they had a very good run.